Leavened Bread for Communion??

[Homer]

Until I recently read a post on Bobby Valentine's blog, I would have never thought use of leavened bread for communion was proper. In fact, that idea seemed strange - wasn't leaven a symbol of impurity, or sin? In Valentine's lengthy post he says that the Eastern Church has always used leavened bread for the eucharist, and in fact the use of unleavened bread is considered wrong and a cause of the split with the Roman church, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Valentine posted:

In the twelfth century John IV, Patriarch of Antioch, said,

“The chief and primary cause of the division between them and us is the matter of azymes . . . the matter of azymes involves in summary form the whole question of true piety; if it is not cured, the disease of the church cannot be cured”[3]

"Azymes" is unleavened bread. The use of unleavened bread is said to be no more than tradition. And how can we argue for unleavened bread and at the same time find wine acceptable? Valentine's post is a long one; you can read it here:

http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot ... -that.html

An additional comment by Valentine in the discussion following his post:

The lesson to be learned is that we often do not realize we are perpetuating deeply held "convictions" that are nothing but the remains of medieval Catholicism. The unleavened bread contributed to the sense of mystery of the mass ... but in the early church the Supper was in fact a MEAL!! A celebration (Eucharist) a time of joy, communion with God ... AND with each other over bread that is no longer "common" (justin's words) because of Jesus.

I would be interested in any comments.

[Paidion]

And how can we argue for unleavened bread and at the same time find wine acceptable?

Grape juice is leavened. It contains yeast cells and will ferment.

Wine is unleavened. In the process of fermentation the yeast cells settle to the bottom among the dregs and the pure unleavened wine is siphoned from the top.

[ApoorSlave]

Homer wrote:

wasn't leaven a symbol of impurity, or sin?

In 1 Corinthians and Galatians this assessment would appear to be correct. But remember Jesus' parable of the woman with three measures of meal? In that case, leaven was something good.

I agree that the early church just had love feasts where communion was celebrated. I believe we can now thank God that the church is starting to recognize that, evidenced by new revivals in home church gatherings. The body of Christ is gradually getting better over time, and hopefully our unity will be restored one day.

[TK]

A youth group at a church i used to attend used pizza and pop for communion.

I didn't see anything wrong with it.

TK

[Paidion]

A youth group at a church i used to attend used pizza and pop for communion. I didn't see anything wrong with it.

Baptism and the Thanksgiving are both representative of a deeper reality. The issue is which practices best represent that reality. You may see nothing wrong with affusion or aspersion, either. But do they represent just as well the reality of our death to self and our rising to a new life in Christ Jesus, as does immersion? I don't think so.

Likewise, when Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me," He wasn't eating pizza and drinking pop with His disciples. . He was eating bread (unleavened I think) and drinking wine with them. He said the bread was His flesh, and the wine was His blood. Which is a better representation of Christ's blood? The red fruit of the grape? Or some coke? Concerning the bread, the early Christians prayed, "As the wheat came from many hills to form this one bread, so may Your Church be gathered together into one!" Does a slice of pizza with its various ingredients represent this unity just as well?

These physical depictions of spiritual realities seem to be important with God. We may "see nothing wrong" with women praying or prophesying without a head covering, as in most churches in our day. But Paul thought the symbolism important. He said that the woman who wears a head covering when praying or prophesying honours her head — her husband. And the man who wears a head covering when praying or prophesying dishonours his head — Christ! Don't ask me why this is the case. But Paul stated it, and taught the head covering for sisters as one of the traditions he commended the Corinthians for maintaining, as well as participating in the Lord's supper (or love feast) including the communion. But that supper was not just an ordinary supper which you attended to just to eat and drink. Paul said you could do that at home. No, that supper had a symbolic meaning which the Corinthians were to understand. It was held in remembrance of Christ, and to do that effectively, it was necessary to employ the appropriate symbols.

[jeremiah]

hello paidion,

Grape juice is leavened. It contains yeast cells and will ferment.

Wine is unleavened. In the process of fermentation the yeast cells settle to the bottom among the dregs and the pure unleavened wine is siphoned from the top.

it seems you're equivocating here. i'm not familiar with the processes that produce wine. however i am with how bread is made. specifically how basic bread was made then and for many centuries that followed. so if we're going to say grape juice is leavened because it contains yeast cells and will ferment, then we must also say that any cake of bread made from any grain is leavened as well. the leaven culture i've kept for about three years now was started from a small wheat patch i grew. as soon as it was harvested, i ground it into flour, and added water. over about a weeks time with daily "feedings" of half out then the same in of fresh flour and water, the mixture fermented and became leaven. nothing was added to it, for at least part of what was necessary for fermentation was already contained in the grain. i say part because microbiologists are divided on exactly where the yeast specie comes from. whether it be from the air, the hands of the preparer, or a combination of both interacting with the components of the ground grain itself.

it is true that leaven is used more times than not to symbolize something sinful. but the since the son of God himself used leaven as a simile for the the kingdom of God, i think we would be safe in emphasizing the good that leaven can show us instead of focusing on how it can just as easily be a picture of unrighteousness. jesus asked the apostles why they reasoned among themselves that they had taken no bread. then explained how they focused on the wrong thing, it wasn't the leaven of bread they should beware of, but the doctrine of the scribes and pharisees. likewise we shouldn't have any fear of leavened bread, or be against unleavened bread in the eucharist. it is true that when Christ shared that first supper with the apostles they ate unleavened bread. but so what? they did so because they were commanded by the law with specific instructions for the passover. that law was a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ. and it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but that which proceeds out of the heart that defiles him. leavened bread is now no less a possible beautiful picture of the bread of life's flesh than unleavened bread might be.

a basic leaven culture consists of 3 or 4 things. yeast that symbiotically grows with bacteria (a relationship that doesn't allow anything else to grow with them), and the flour and water mixture that serves as the food/media for the other two to grow in. for me the implications of this relationship are astounding, one being a picture of Christ in us and through us to work righteousness and gracefully affect(and be affected by) all that surround us. i definitely agree with the point you made about baptism and immersion. i just don't think leavened bread lacks anything at all to serve as a picture of the deeper reality of the eucharist.

grace and peace...

[Homer]

Paidion,

My thoughts are the same as yours regarding this matter except I am unsure about the leavened vs. unleavened issue. Did you read Valentine's article (link in my OP)? I found it very interesting. Valentine discusses the arguments over the Greek artos and also thoughts of the early Christians such as Justin. It does seem unlikely they would have had unleavened bread at their love feasts.

Valentine wrote:

My interest in this subject was aroused through a passing historical comment in the book, The Crux of the Matter. I was literally taken back by this statement by the authors of that book,

“[F]rom the ninth century, the common bread, leavened bread, was replaced by unleavened bread. Using regular table bread had been the practice of the churches for centuries of Christian worship from very early days. Church officials introduced unleavened bread apparently because it would be considered special, set apart, holy. (Church leaders in the East accused the Western church of introducing Jewish practices, of becoming Judaizers because of this innovation; their descendents, the Eastern Orthodox, use leavened bread to this day.).” [4]

Was this accurate? How could this be? I had never heard of it and I had a Master’s degree in Church History! Did the early church, in fact, use common ordinary bread for the Table?

I can see that the leavened vs. unleavened might be a matter of indifference but would be very uncomfortable going beyond that (before I read the article I would have been very uncomfortable with leavened bread). Jesus commanded that we "do this" in His memory, so we ought to consider how much latitude there is in "this". He instituted a ritual by positive command, but it seems there is an "anything goes" streak running through evangelicalism today regarding anything ritualistic, including not doing it (whatever "it" is) at all including the assembling of the saints.

[Paidion]

Yes, Homer, I read it. It is the first time I have heard of the use of leavened versus unleavened bread in communion as being the issue upon which the eastern and western branches of the church formally separated in 1054 A.D. The two branches of the Catholic Church had many disagreements throughout the centuries and were, for all practical purposes, divided long before 1054. But it what is usually considered to be the straw that broke the camel's back in 1054 is the disagreement whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Roman Catholic) or from the Father only (Greek Orthodox).

In any case, I think it is clear that "artos" is a word which means any kind of bread, and clearly refers to unleavened bread in Luke 22:19, if it is agreed that Christ used unleavened bread on the occasion of the passover feast. That fact that the word sometimes simply means "food" as in Mark 3:20 does nothing to give support to the practice of using unleavened bread for the communion. In English we use "bread" for "food" too as in "breadwinner". This merely shows that "artos" has a broad meaning, and thus was appropriate to use for the unleavened bread of Luke 22:19.

To me the following passage suggests that Paul indicated that Christians normally used unleavened bread in the communion:

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (I Corinthians 5:7,8)

I know Paul was primarily exhorting the Corinthians to extirpate evil from themselves, and that they were to celebrate the "festival" with sincerity and truth rather than malice and evil. But for Paul, that is exactly what unleavened bread symbolizes — sincerity and truth, whereas leavened bread symbolizes malice and evil. Jesus also used "leaven" to refer to the evil teachings of the scribes and Pharisees.

Yes, Jesus also used leaven in one of His parables of the Kingdom:

Another parable he spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." (Matthew 13:33)

But does this mean that the symbol of leaven is sometimes used in a good sense? I don't think so. I think it shows only that Jesus indicated that the rapid growth of the Kingdom was like leaven in one respect — that it increases rapidly until all the meal is leavened. One could say that a particular good man is as observant as a housebreaker. This wouldn't imply that the word "housebreaker" is sometimes used in a good sense.

[jeremiah]

hello paidion,

...Jesus also used "leaven" to refer to the evil teachings of the scribes and Pharisees.

yes i agree.

...I think it shows only that Jesus indicated that the rapid growth of the Kingdom was like leaven in one respect — that it increases rapidly until all the meal is leavened

i'm not sure they would have considered a fermenting lump of dough to be finished rapidly. from kneading to baking would have been anywhere(and still is) between 4 and 24 hours depending on the degree of fermentation required by the baker. but i do think they would have known for sure that the lump would be affected thoroughly. modern commercial yeasts may be "rapid rising" but fermenting bread dough with natural leaven is an all day affair.

One could say that a particular good man is as observant as a housebreaker. This wouldn't imply that the word "housebreaker" is sometimes used in a good sense.

i agree completely, but it hardly makes your point. breaking in to someone's house without their consent is always wrong, leavened bread is not. in fact to the people of that day, it was a staple for life. leaven can and is used as a good thing for our bodies.

grace and peace...

[TK]

It seems to me that Jesus used bread and wine because that is what was on the table.

Why is there significance in what he used? He could just as easily have passed around some lamb, or some other drink than wine if that is what was available. If they were on the seashore he might have passed around some broiled fish.

If not, why not?